The Elements of Criminal Conduct

Question 1

Elements of Criminal Conduct Formula

Answer 1

Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Legality + Lack of Defenses + Crime

Question 2

Actus Reus (The Criminal Conduct)

Answer 2

Consists of: (1) a voluntary act (2) that causes social harm

Question 3

Actus Reus - Voluntary Act - CL v. MPC

Answer 3

CL: Voluntary act requires a voluntary act and social harm. Is voluntary if D willed the act or was sufficiently free

MPC: 2.01, no person convicted of a crime in the absence of conduct (physical activity, affirmative act that includes of which he is physically capable.

ex) Martin v. State; drunk forced onto highway, cannot be charged if forced // State v. Utter - PTSD killed son, evidence insufficient of Ds consciousness

Question 4

Omissions

Answer 4

Subject to few expectations, a person has no duty to prevent harm to another. (People v. Beardsley: man did not have to help mistress)

Question 5

Omissions - CL v. MPC

Answer 5

CL: No crime unless there is a legal duty (statute, K, special relationship, creation of harm, assumption of care). Willful omission + death = murder /// Neg. Omission + death = manslaughter

MPC: No liability unless 1) omission is expressly made by law defining offense or 2) a duty to perform the omitted acts otherwise imposed law.

Question 6

Actus Reus - Conduct Crime

Answer 6

Law is prohibiting dangerous conduct (DWI) to prevent a result

Question 7

Actus Reus - Result Crime

Answer 7

Law is punishing you because of unwanted result (murder)

Question 8

Actus Reus - Attendant Circumstances

Answer 8

A condition that must be present in conjunction with the prohibited conduct or result in order to constitute a crime.

ex) CL burglary is B&E a dwelling house of another in the nighttime with intent to commit felony (Attendant circumstances: HOME THAT DOESN’T BELONG TO ACTOR IN THE NIGHT.

Question 9

Mens Rea (Criminal Mind)

Answer 9

An act doesn’t make a person guilty unless the mind is guilty.

Question 10

Mens Rea - Intents

Answer 10

Transferred: (1) D intends to cause harm to 1 person but accidentally causes it to another (2) social harm remains the same and intent follows harm (3) way of killing must be as D intended

ex) D1 intends to kill Y1 who uses X1 as a shield. D1 shoots killing both —> CL: intentional killing of both // MOC: purposeful killing of Y1 and knowingly for XQ

General: CL ONLY (1) No particular state of mind is set out in the crime, Px needs to prove the social harm was performed with morally blameworthy state of mind (2) less culpable mental state = recklessness/neg (3) mental state relates solely to the actus reus

Specific Intent: (1) moral state is expressly set out in the definition of the crime (knowledge/intent to) (2) a special mental element which is req. for the actus reus of the crime

Question 11

Mens Rea - CL Culpability (Intent)

Answer 11

Intent = purposely or knowingly (Ds desire to cause the social harm or acts with knowledge that the social harm is virtually certain to occur as a result)

Question 12

Mens Rea - MPC Culpability

Answer 12

2. 02 - all crimes are specific intent
3. Purposely - conscious objective to cause a result or perform an action
4. Knowingly - must be aware the result or perform an action
5. Recklessly - consciously disregards a substantial or unjustifiable risk that the result will be caused from conduct (not enough for specific intent crime)
6. Negligently - should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that result will occur from conduct. Gross deviation ​from the RP standard of care.

Question 13

Mens Rea - Undefined CL v. MPC

Answer 13

CL: Px must prove D acted with a guilty mind under CL

MPC: default to recklessness; has to be aware conduct is improper.

Question 14

Mens Rea - Not Required

Answer 14

STRICT LIABILITY

Purposes: social betterment rather than punishment
Ex) Stat. rape, felony murder, liquor laws, motor vehicle violations etc.

Types: (1) Malum in se - bad in itself (2) Malum prohibitum - bad bc gov. says so

Defenses: NONE

Question 15

Elements of A Crime

Answer 15

Actus Reus
Social Harm
Mens Rea
Actual Cause
Proximate Cause

Question 16

Mens Rea - CL Intent

Answer 16

Purpose - results that are the conscious objective of the actor
Knowledge - results that the actor knows are virtually certain to occur from his conduct

ex) ppl v. conley - wine bottle transferred intent; jury can infer intent based from circumstances

Question 17

Causation

Answer 17

only arises in the Px of result crimes, when the social harm of an offense is an unwanted result.

Question 18

Causation - Actual

Answer 18

cause-in-fact; but-for test - Ds conduct is a cause in fact of the prohibited result is the said result would not have occurred but for the Ds conduct (when it did)

ex) velasquez - no crim. liability for social harm unless Ds conduct was an actual cause of prohibited result.

Question 19

Causation - Actual (Special)

Answer 19

accelerating a result - if a 2nd independent act accelerates the result of the first act, both ar but-for causes

ex) oxendine - child abuse from two victims on seperate day; couldn’t prove beating 2 accelerated, so no actual cause.

substantial factor test - when 2 Ds acting independently and not in concert with 1 another, commit 2 separate acts each of which alone is sufficient to bring about prohibited result (applied when but-for test fails; rare)

concurrent sufficient causes - either attack would have killed V instantly. But-for Ds act would V have died by 2 simultaneous mortal wounds? (if NO -both are actual causes)

Question 20

Causation - Proximate

Answer 20

Vs injury must be a direct and natural result of Ds actions; an act that is a direct cause of social harm = proximate cause

Question 21

Causation - Proximate (Issues)

Answer 21

When some but-for causal agent comes into play AFTER Ds voluntary act/omission and BEFORE social harm occurs:

Act of God
Act of an independent 3rd party
Act/Omission of the victim

ex) ppl v. rideout - car accident, victims walk back into the HW from safety and get struck by the car. Original driver was not prox cause of death bc V was in position of safety.

Question 22

Causation - CL v. MPC

Answer 22

CL (foreseeability test) determines if actor was the direct cause and whether there were any intervening causes that sever the causal chain

MPC handles prox. cause within the mens rea as to results. If results deviate too far from what is foreseeable, D will be exculpated for purpose/knowledge crimes. If not, D will be convicted even if there’s an intervening cause

Question 23

Causation - 6 Proximate Causes Factor Tests

Answer 23

De Minimis - contribution to social harm; a very minor but-for cause generally not treated as legal cause when there’s a much bigger cause. Some wrongdoers have too minor a causal role to justify criminal punishment.
ex) D strikes V with minor injuries, V drive himself to the Dr and is hit by lightning

Intended Consequences - If D intended a harm and gets it in the general manner she wanted she shouldn’t escape liability even if an unforeseeable event intervened
ex) mom gives poison to nurse who gives to son = prox cause

Omissions - can’t function as a superseding cause that relieves the 1st person of liability.
ex) D drives car neg. causing death of V (pax), Vs failure to wear a seatbelt (although causally related to death) will not absolve D from liability

Responsive/Coincidental Intervening Cause - (Responsive/Dependent) an act that occurs in reaction or response Ds prior wrongful act. Generally doesn’t relieve D. Will break the chain only if it’s highly abnormal and unforeseeable. (Coincidental/Independent) merely puts V at a certain place/time. Will break chain UNLESS its foreseeable.
ex 1) D neg. capsizes boat, V drunk pax dies trying to swim to shore, Vs response was to Ds improper conduct.
ex 2) D1 robs V2, abandoning him on a road, where D2 kills him. D1 actions did not cause D2 to kill him (and isn’t foreseeable).

Apparent Safety - once a person reaches a point of safety and chooses to leave that safety , it is a superseding cause that breaks the causal chain

Voluntary Human Intervention - V voluntarily makes a choice that makes harm worse or prevents the harm from being lessened.

Question 24

Concurrence of the Elements

Answer 24

Mens rea must occur at the SAME TIME as the actus reus

ex1) D plans to kill V, abandons plans after becoming friends with V. later during an accident kills V. D is not liability bc she did not have the mens rea ta the same time as actus reus.
ex2) D2 is not guilty of murder if she innocently takes Vs life, after which she decides she’s glad she did it.